Quote
Doxa
But ABB tour consisted solely of stadiums

- Doxa

Quote
tatters

Quote
Doxa
But ABB tour consisted solely of stadiums

- Doxa

Mostly, not solely, of stadiums.

Quote
slew
Winter - You have it right except for the part about the republican. I'm one and when I see the Stones is when I let loose. We aren't all stuffed shirts!

Quote
Doxa
Actually I'm not against stadiums per se but it looks like that the size of the audience seems to gain and control the policy of the nature of the performance (and set list)... the show is more spectacle - the visuality, fireworks, lights and all, are more important than the musical substance. The set lists are safe and sure hot rocks/forty licks kind of deals. There are even claims that certain "obscure" songs do not "work" in stadiums, but need smaller context, etc. Bullshit.

I think the claim that certain songs doesn't work in the stadium-context actually tries to say that in a stadium they need to concentrate to theatrics, fooling around, Vegas Show-ness to "entertain" the crowd. This means that they can't put the energy to actual music.

It shouldn't need to be so. In 1978 - and to an extent 1981/82 - the band show that it can challenge the audience and rock hard in a stadium without the stadium theatrics. Seemingly they don't believe any longer to the power of their own musicianship and music to think it is to be enough to "win" the audience.

I think there was nothing wrong with the gigs getting bigger - what happened, say, from 1969 to 1982, was quite natural development. But after 1989, it looks like that the stadium show, as a concept of its own, have started to control the performance and its limits; it's living like a life of its own. And The Stones somehow stuck into it, and sound like being forced to do the shows and set lists like they do. It is musically sad that seemingly anyone involved seem to have accepted this supposed necessary state of affairs. I think that's bull shit. There is always a chance to do things differently, if there is a will or artistic braveness and ambitousness.

- Doxa

Quote
keefriffhard4life

Quote
Doxa
Actually I'm not against stadiums per se but it looks like that the size of the audience seems to gain and control the policy of the nature of the performance (and set list)... the show is more spectacle - the visuality, fireworks, lights and all, are more important than the musical substance. The set lists are safe and sure hot rocks/forty licks kind of deals. There are even claims that certain "obscure" songs do not "work" in stadiums, but need smaller context, etc. Bullshit.

I think the claim that certain songs doesn't work in the stadium-context actually tries to say that in a stadium they need to concentrate to theatrics, fooling around, Vegas Show-ness to "entertain" the crowd. This means that they can't put the energy to actual music.

It shouldn't need to be so. In 1978 - and to an extent 1981/82 - the band show that it can challenge the audience and rock hard in a stadium without the stadium theatrics. Seemingly they don't believe any longer to the power of their own musicianship and music to think it is to be enough to "win" the audience.

I think there was nothing wrong with the gigs getting bigger - what happened, say, from 1969 to 1982, was quite natural development. But after 1989, it looks like that the stadium show, as a concept of its own, have started to control the performance and its limits; it's living like a life of its own. And The Stones somehow stuck into it, and sound like being forced to do the shows and set lists like they do. It is musically sad that seemingly anyone involved seem to have accepted this supposed necessary state of affairs. I think that's bull shit. There is always a chance to do things differently, if there is a will or artistic braveness and ambitousness.

- Doxa

best post in a long time. also the stones overuse the extra players. no need for vegas backing vocals and an entire horn section of every tune because it just doesn't work on every song.

Quote
Justin
Hey I don't mind where they play...it's just what they play. And we tend to get the most non-adventurous set lists at stadium shows. Mick is so concerned with the new fans in the audience--what about the hardcore fans? How about making the show (or tour) worthwhile for us too?

I wish they'd put some warhorses on the shelf for a while...actually make it a treat to hear it when they do pull it out. I mean...every damn show we know we can expect: JJF, Tumblin, HTW, Brown Sugar, Satisfaction and Start Me Up. Do audiences REALLY need Start Me Up? It's a great track but you really get the idea after the first 90 seconds. As a concert goer---you can predict the last block of songs to the T. It doesn't help that there really isn't anything "new" in how they're playing these songs either. Show me JJF from the Licks tour or ABB tour...I wouldn't be able to notice the difference. The best songs are the ones where you can tell what tour it's from...that's when you know they're still adding something to the song. Now, the songs are beyond regurgitation.

So, I would still be faced with these issues even if they played an arena or a club show. But something magical does happen to the band when you stick them on a small stage where they can actually FEEL the music.

Quote
Doxa

It shouldn't need to be so. In 1978 - and to an extent 1981/82 - the band show that it can challenge the audience and rock hard in a stadium without the stadium theatrics. Seemingly they don't believe any longer to the power of their own musicianship and music to think it is to be enough to "win" the audience.

- Doxa